July 2016doc.: IEEE 802.11-16/0825r1

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

REVmc BRC July 8 and 15 Telecon Minutes
Date: 2016-07-15
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Jon Rosdahl / Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. / 10871 N 5750 W
Highland, UT 84003 / +1-801-492-4023 /

1.0REVmcBRC Telecon July 8th 2016

1.1Called to order at 10:04am ET by the chair, Dorothy STANLEY (HPE)

1.2Patent Policy Reviewed

1.2.1No issues noted

1.3Attendance: Dorothy STANLEY (HPE), Jon ROSDAHL (Qualcomm), Adrian STEPHENS(Intel); Emily QI (Intel); Hasan YAGHOOBI(Intel); KazayukiSAKODA (Sony); Graham SMITH (SR Technologies); Osama ABOUL-MAGD (Huawei); Sigurd SCHELSTRAETE (Quantenna); Thomas HANDTE(Sony); Mark HAMILTON (Ruckus) JinjingJIANG (Marvell); Mark RISON (Samsung); Menzo WENTINK (Qualcomm);

1.4Review Agenda

1.4.1Approved agenda:

  1. Call to order, attendance, and patent policy
  2. Editor report 11-13-95r31
  3. Comment resolution:
  4. 11-16-820 Adrian STEPHENS,
  5. 11-16-824 Graham SMITH,
  6. 11-16-823 Kazayuki SAKODA
  7. July EC Report and Revcom approval plan
  8. AOB – additional teleconferences
  9. Adjourn
  1. Editor Report – 11-13/95r31 – Adrian STEPHENS (Intel)
  2. Review updated presentation
  3. 334 New Comments for 2nd Recirculation
  4. 62 comments have Resolution drafted – 3 need extra review
  5. Expected 43 days if we resolve on the same rate as before.
  6. Resolve SB2, 15-day Recirc (SB3-D7), then 10 day Recirc (SB4 – D7)
  7. Only 26 days to make the Aug 5th deadline.
  8. Review Doc 11-16/820r1Adrian STEPHENS(Intel)
  9. CID 8074 (GEN)
  10. Review comment
  11. Review proposed change – P203.53
  12. Proposed Resolution: Accepted
  13. No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion
  14. CID 8085 (GEN)
  15. Review Comment
  16. Review Proposed change – P3163.50 and P3164.6
  17. ACTION ITEM #1: KAZ to research the need for two variables
  18. Will review next week.
  19. CID 8090 (GEN)
  20. Review Comment
  21. Proposed Resolution: Accepted
  22. No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion
  23. CID 8186 (GEN) --- (Note CID change later in call)
  24. Review Comment
  25. Inconsistency noted in cases cited.
  26. Special value 255 indicates multiple antennas
  27. Proposed Resolution: Revised; Change 256 to 254 at 2215.4, 2215.26 and 2254.64; Change 255 to 254 at 3239.60 and 3248.60

These changes make the changes requested by Commenter.

1.6.5.5No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.6CID 8187 (GEN)

1.6.6.1Review Comment

1.6.6.2Review location at P2254.61

1.6.6.3Review Page 2270.60 which uses 0-255

1.6.6.4Proposed Resolution: Revised; At 2254.61 change 256 to 254.

In reply to the commenter, the comment provides no justification for allowing the use of “0” as a lower bound, neither does explain that this would mean in this context.

1.6.6.5Discussion on the changes could allow more comments in the next round, and as these two CIDs are really out of scope.

1.6.6.6Change the Proposed resolution for this CID and for CID 8186

1.6.6.7Proposed Resolution for CID 8187(GEN) and CID 8186(GEN): Rejected. The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.

1.6.6.8No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.7CID 8057 (MAC)

1.6.7.1Review comment

1.6.7.2Review discussion

1.6.7.3Case 3 is covered on the subsequent section on the cited page.

1.6.7.4Discussion on where to put this new sentence.

1.6.7.5Proposed Resolution: REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 14:52:12Z):. At 1585.24 after “or lifetime limit.” insert the following new sentence: “If the AP does not receive a Block Ack frame in response to an A-MPDU that contains one or more individually addressed Data frames that require acknowledgment containing all or part of an MSDU or A-MSDU sent with the EOSP subfield equal to 1 it shall retransmit at least one of those frames at least once within the same SP, subject to applicable retry or lifetime limit.”

1.6.7.6No objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.8CID 8078 (MAC)

1.6.8.1Review comment

1.6.8.2Discussion on the “order”

1.6.8.3Possible to have this CID rejected due to scope.

1.6.8.4After more discussion, determined group willing to accept the proposed resolution.

1.6.8.5Proposed Resolution: REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 14:58:49Z): At 562.35 replace “Each figurein Clause 9 (Frame formats) depicts the fields/subfields as they appear in the MAC frame and in the order inwhich they are passed to the physical layer (PHY), from left to right.” with: “Each figure and table in Clause 9 (Frame formats) … from left to right and then from top to bottom”

1.6.8.6No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.9CID 8128 (MAC)

1.6.9.1Review Comment

1.6.9.2Discussion on the specific changes.

1.6.9.3Proposed Resolution: REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:02:05Z):. At 562.35: replace “fields” with “components (e.g., fields, subfields, elements and subelements)”

At 562.36: replace “the fields/subfields” with “the components”

1.6.9.4No objection - Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.10CID 8133 (MAC)

1.6.10.1 Review Comment

1.6.10.2 Straw Poll – in favor in of changing prior sentence also – 4 yes

1.6.10.3No further count was made as the objection was withdrawn.

1.6.11Proposed Resolution: REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:04:46Z): Make changes as shown in 11-16/820r1 ( for CID 8133. These effect the intent of the comment and improve the previous sentence for consistency.

1.6.11.1 No Objection - Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.12CID 8140 (MAC)

1.6.12.1 Review Comment

1.6.12.2 Review discussion

1.6.12.3 Discussion on why the proposed change is correct.

1.6.12.4 Proposed Resolution: ACCEPTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:14:35Z)

1.6.12.5 No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.13CID 8199 (MAC)

1.6.13.1 Review Comment

1.6.13.2 Review Discussion

1.6.13.3 Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:18:27Z): The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.

1.6.13.4No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.6.14CID 8059 (GEN)

1.6.14.1Review Comment

1.6.14.2 Should be moved the CID to “Security” and assign to JouniMALINEN

1.6.15CID 8082 (GEN)

1.6.15.1Assign to Carlos CORDEIRO

1.6.16CID 8137 (GEN)

1.6.16.1 Review Comment

1.6.16.2 Review discussion

1.6.16.3 Previous discussion ARC reviewed.

1.6.16.3.1Scoreboarding was assigned similar to a simple Block ACK and so any frame would be ACK

1.6.16.4 Discussion on the location of where the duplicate detection would need to appear relative to the Scoreboarding.

1.6.16.5 Moving where the Scoreboarding is located discussed.

1.6.16.6 Forging a frame at the Scoreboarding is no different than a forged frame at the simple ACK.

1.6.16.7 Discussion on how a possible attack would be different than a sequence number attack.

1.6.16.8 Ran out of time, so we will not resolve at this time.

1.6.16.8.1 Proposed Resolution: Revised.

  1. Remove the brace graphic and adjacent text “The ‘MPDU Decryption and Integrity (optional)’ and ‘Block Ack Buffering and Reordering’ processes may be performed in either order (RX)”
  2. Move the “MPDU Encryption (TX) / Decryption (RX) and Integrity (optional)” block to be below the row that includes “Block AckScoreboarding”
  3. Add “**” after the text in the following boxes
  4. Block Ack Buffering and Reordering
  5. Duplicate Detection
  6. Block AckScoreboarding
  7. MPDU Encryption …

4. Add a note in the region to the right containing: “** These processes might be performed in an implementation in any relative order, with different implications for performance and possible vulnerability to certain denial of service attacks.”

1.6.16.9 More discussion will need to be done.

1.6.17Note Security Related CIDs will be assigned to Jouni

1.6.18Question on if there was a new ARC conference call soon – answer no, but we could set up another BRC call on this topic if needed. Remember to use the reflector for more discussion.

1.7Review document – 11-16/824r1 – Graham SMITH (SR Technologies)

1.7.1

1.7.2CID 8083 (GEN)

1.7.2.1Review Comment

1.7.2.2Proposed Resolution: Accept

1.7.2.3No objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.7.3CID 8251 (MAC)

1.7.3.1Review Comment

1.7.3.2Discussion on use of May/Might.

1.7.3.3Proposed Resolution: CID 8251 (MAC): REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:34:53Z): At 1377.62 and 1377.63 change "may" to "might". At 1310.58 change "may" to "might"

1.7.3.4No objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.7.4CID 8127 (MAC)

1.7.4.1Review comment

1.7.4.2There was an issue with the comment import, the correct comment “"Gaps might exist in the ordering of fields and elements within frames. The order that remains is ascending." is not very clear (the order of what?) but assuming it is referring to the order of elements by element ID, the second statement is wrong (e.g. Quiet and TPC Report in beacons, VSIEs in all frames that can take an element with ID > 221, MME/AMPE, etc.)”

1.7.4.3Discussion on “Order”

1.7.4.3.1The cited sentence is correct, but not adhered to in practice

1.7.4.4Compliant STA would adhere to the standard

1.7.4.5Propose to just reject the CID

1.7.4.6The interoperability should be foremost in the consideration.

1.7.4.7Discussion on the possible resolution options

1.7.4.8Straw Poll:

1.7.4.8.1Accept - 111

1.7.4.8.2Reject – out of Scope - 111

1.7.4.8.3Abstain –11111

1.7.4.8.4Result – 3-3-5

1.7.4.9Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 15:53:41Z): The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.

1.7.4.10 Mark Ready for Motion

1.7.5CID 8269 (MAC)

1.7.5.1Review comment

1.7.5.2The comment had been cut off as well. The full comment:

"The Estimated Air Time Fraction subfield is 8 bits in length and contains an unsigned integer that represents the predicted percentage of time, linearly scaled with 255 representing 100%, that a new STA joining the BSS will be allocated for PPDUs carrying Data of the corresponding AC for that STA." -- if you look at R.7 it turns out that this is exactly the time for the PPDUs, not including any contention/IFS time. This is a very subtle point (and differs from e.g. admission control).

1.7.5.3Review Discussion

1.7.5.4Discussion of the precision of the calculations and if the note is warranted.

1.7.5.5Discussion on why the rejection is warranted

1.7.5.5.1Alternative rejections reasons discussed

1.7.5.5.2Out of scope – no change where in this area

1.7.5.5.3Text is clear and this is just a note – no need

1.7.5.5.4Calculation is not that precise and the note implies something that is not

1.7.5.6Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 16:07:08Z): The proposed note is not viewed as necessary, as the cited text is clear.

1.7.5.7Mark Ready for Motion

1.7.6CID 8270 (MAC) and 8266 (MAC)

1.7.6.1Review Comment

1.7.6.2Review discussion

1.7.6.3Proposed Change cites “other comment”, but not clear which it is.

1.7.6.3.1From Commenter: """The Data PPDU Duration Target field is 8 bits in length and is an unsigned integer that indicates the
expected target duration of PPDUs that contain at least one MPDU with the Type subfield equal to Data"" -- but the equations in R.7 assume the PPDU contains just Data MPDUs"

1.7.6.4Discussion on what the update revised “Proposed Resolution:”

1.7.6.4.1Change "at least one MPDU" to "only MPDUs" in the cited text

1.7.6.5Similar to CID 8266 (MAC) and the changes being suggested by the Editors in CID 8273 (Editor)

1.7.6.6Suggestion that input from Matthew FISCHER, but we could choose the best guess and check with him afterward.

1.7.6.7Proposed Resolution for CID 8270 (MAC):REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-08 16:12:02Z): Change the cited text to "PPDUs that contain only MPDUs with the Type subfield equal to Data"

1.7.6.8Proposed Resolution for CID 8266 (MAC): ACCEPTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 16:12:02Z)

1.7.6.9No Objection – Mark Ready for Motion

1.8Review document 11-16/823r0 – Kazuyuki SAKODA (Sony)

1.8.1

1.8.2CID 8028 (MAC)

1.8.2.1Review comment

1.8.2.2Review discussion

1.8.2.3Explanation on the scale needed for accurate metric values.

1.8.2.4Discussion on how this change affects aggregation

1.8.2.5Concern with some grammar,

1.8.2.6Objection to the change at this time. Better to take up next revision.

1.8.2.7Discussion on the Goal of getting the REVmc done by Aug 5th Submission deadline.

1.8.2.8Straw Poll:

1.8.2.8.1Accept the possible proposed change direction

1.8.2.8.2Reject Comment as Out of Scope

1.8.2.8.3Results: 1-6-2 – clear direction for rejection

1.8.2.9Suggestion that the submission be updated and resubmit for consideration for REVmd

1.8.2.10 Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (MAC: 2016-07-08 16:43:40Z): The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment

1.8.2.11Mark Ready for Motion

1.9Return to doc 11-16/820r1

1.9.1

1.9.2CID 8222 (GEN)

1.9.2.1Review Comment

1.9.2.2Review Discussion

1.9.2.3Discussion on the value of Estimated Throughput in both or only in outbound direction.

1.9.2.4Need to include a change at 3623.50 also

1.9.2.5Discussion on the value of the change

1.9.2.6Discussion on how to possibly reject the Comment

1.9.2.6.1not really an “Out of Scope”

1.9.2.6.2The R.1 equation uses EstimatedThroughput and not “inbound/outbound” so implies both are equal.

1.9.2.7The R7 equation is for both inbound and outbound as they are calculated separately.

1.9.2.8Ran out of Time

1.9.3Will take up later

1.10Next call is July 15th at the normal time -- 3 hour call – 10am-1pm ET

1.11Proposal for new calls

1.11.1July 19th and July 22nd proposed

1.11.1.1 No support for July 22nd

1.11.1.2 Change to July 21stfor two hours – 10am-noon ET

1.11.1.3 July 19th10am ET for two hours – 10am-noon ET

1.12Request to do some more assignments before the next telecom

1.12.1The TG leadership to have an adhoc call to suggest assignments prior to next telecom.

1.13Adjourned at 1:02pm ET

2.0REVmc BRC Telecon July 15th 2016

2.1Called to order at 10:04am ET by the chair, Dorothy STANLEY (HPE)

2.2Patent Policy Reviewed

2.2.1No issues noted

2.3Attendance: Dorothy STANLEY (HPE), Jon ROSDAHL (Qualcomm), Adrian STEPHENS (Intel); Edward AU (Huawei); Hasan YAGHOOBI (Intel); Jinjing JIANG (Marvell);

Emily QI (Intel); Graham SMITH (SR Technologies); Kazayuki SAKODA (Sony);

Yusuke Tanaka (Sony); Amal Ekbal (National Instruments); Mark HAMILTON (Ruckus) Mark RISON (Samsung); Menzo WENTINK (Qualcomm); Payam Torab (Broadcom);Sigurd SCHELSTRAETE (Quantenna); Sean Coffey (Realtek); Thomas HANDTE (Sony); Dick ROY (SRA); Lei WANG (Marvell)

2.4Review Agenda

2.4.1

2.4.2The approved agenda is:

1. Call to order, attendance, and patent policy

2. Editor report – any issues with editing of approved CIDs

3. Comment resolution –

a)11-16-826 – Edward AU (Huawei)

b)11-16-820 – Adrian STEPHENS (Intel), continue with CID 8137 (1 hour)

c)11-16-831 & 11-16/842 – Graham SMITH (SR Technologies)

CID 8055, 8170 (20 Mins)

d)11-16-665R37 “Review” comment group – Jon ROSDAHL (Qualcomm) (30 Mins)

e)11-16-834 – Stephen McCann – ANQP CIDs

f)11-16-840, 841 – Thomas (20 mins)

g)11-16-822 Hassan/Ganesh (20 mins)

4. Motions – at 12:45 Eastern

5. AOB:

Schedule

a)Expect to miss the August 5th Revcom submission date (leading to Sept 2016 RevCom approval)

b)Thus, the TGmc plan changes to October 17th Revcom Submission date (leading to Dec 2016 RevCom approval)

c)July 28 or ideally earlier: Comment resolution on this SB complete

d)July 30 – Aug 15 editing and review of editing

e)Aug 15 – Aug 30: SB recirculation

f)On or before Sept 9: Complete comment resolution (goal unchanged draft)

g)Sept 10 to Sept 20: 10 day recirculation of unchanged draft

h)Sept 10: TGai and TGah can begin to make any changes required based on TGmc changes (in September meeting)

i)October 4th: EC teleconference approval – requests for unconditional approval for TGmc, TGah, TGai

6. Adjourn

2.4.3R2 of the draft agenda was presented

2.4.4Add doc 11-16/842 from Graham

2.4.5Edward asked to be moved first to allow for an absence he is expecting during the call

2.4.6Agenda Approved by unanimous consent.

2.5Editor Report – 11-13/95r32 – Adrian STEPHENS (Intel)

2.5.1

2.5.2New Comment groups “Out of Scope” and “Insufficient Detail”

2.5.3Review slides 1-11

2.5.4Slide 9 – End timing

2.5.4.1TGai and TGah have been forced to slip by 3 months due to the REVmc delay.

2.5.4.2Review embed Project plan

2.5.5Will create an extra review panel for change review

2.6Review doc: 11-16/826r0 – Edward AU (Huawei)

2.6.1

2.6.2CID 8091 (GEN)

2.6.2.1Review comment

2.6.2.2Review discussion

2.6.2.3Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (GEN: 2016-07-15 14:19:23Z);.The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.

2.6.2.4Discussion on the need to make a similar change, but do so in REVmd.

2.6.2.5No objection – Mark ready for Motion

2.6.3CID 8072 (GEN)

2.6.3.1Review Comment

2.6.3.2Review discussion and the options for resolution

2.6.3.3Proposed Resolutions: There are two way forward options for the group to decide:

Option 1:

  • Reject the resolution with the following reason: “the comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.”

Option 2:

  • Revised with the following changes:
  • At line 159.42, replace “The capabilities to be advertised for the BSS.” with “The STA capabilities to be advertised.”
  • At line 159.46, replace “The capabilities to be advertised for the BSS.”with “Specifies the parameters in the HT Capabilities element that are supported by the STA.”
  • Discussion on how to move forward.
  • For now, a resolution will be prepared for Option 1 and ready for motion.
  • Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (GEN: 2016-07-15 14:25:31Z) the comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment
  • No objection – Mark ready for motion
  1. CID 8073 (GEN)
  2. Review comment
  3. Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (GEN: 2016-07-15 14:27:35Z) the comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment
  4. No objection – Mark Ready for motion
  5. CID 8002 (GEN)
  6. Review Comment
  7. Proposed Resolution: ACCEPTED (GEN: 2016-07-15 14:28:18Z)
  8. Discussion on if this is related to a change or other unsatisfied MSB CID.
  9. Discussion on accepting this change
  10. No objection – Mark Ready for motion
  1. Review doc 11-16/820r3 Adrian STEPHENS (Intel)
  2. CID 8137 (GEN)
  3. Review comment and action items
  4. ACTION ITEM #2 : Mark Hamilton to bring Rejection text – Assign CID to Mark HAMILTON
  5. CID 8222 (GEN)
  6. Review status
  7. Previous action item was to have Matthew FISCHER to provide some feedback
  8. More time to allow Matthew time to respond was requested.
  9. CID 8256 (GEN)
  10. Review Comment
  11. Proposed resolution: ACCEPTED (GEN: 2016-07-15 14:42:39Z)
  12. No Objection – Mark Ready for motion
  13. CID 8314 (GEN)
  14. Move to Security Comment group
  15. Assigned to Jouni MALINEN, insufficient detail default resolution
  16. Adrian to delete from his submission
  17. CID 8008 (MAC)
  18. Assign to Carlos CORDEIRO.
  19. Adrian to delete from his submission.
  20. CID 8069 (MAC)
  21. Review comment
  22. Discussiondebated and the proposed resolution objected to.
  23. Proposed resolution updated: Proposed resolution:
    Revised. At cited location, After “All IBSS STAs”, add “, except the DFS owner”
  24. ACTION ITEM #3: add permission for DFS owner to change the schedule. And update proposal
  25. CID 8070 (MAC)
  26. Review comment
  27. Discussion on if this was or was not out of scope…
  28. Proposed resolution was to reject out of scope, but it was determined to have a new proposal made.
  29. ACTION ITEM #4: Assign Kaz, Mark R and Adrian to work together to proposal alternate resolution.
  30. CID 8141 (MAC)
  31. Review comment
  32. Review discussion
  33. Discussion on the difference of MSDU and frames
  34. Possible rejection could be for out of scope.
  35. Proposed Resolution: Revised. Change: at 1268.02: “1268.02: “Group addressed MSDUs or MMPDUs shall not be fragmented even if their length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold.” to: “1268.02: “MSDUs or MMPDUs carried in a group addressed MPDU shall not be fragmented even if their length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold.”

At 1309.32: Change “The MAC may fragment and reassemble individually addressed MSDUs or MMPDUs.” to “The MAC may fragment and reassemble MSDUs or MMPDUs that are carried in individually addressed MPDUs.”

2.7.9.6Straw Poll: Should the change be made as proposed by Adrian

2.7.9.6.1Yes: No: Abstain:

2.7.9.6.2Results: 6-4-5

2.7.9.7Mark Hamilton noted that the resolution has some minor errors, and will have a correct version posted:

2.7.9.8Corrected Resolution:REVISED (MAC: 2016-07-15 14:53:21Z):

Change: at 1268.02: "Group addressed MSDUs or MMPDUs shall not be fragmented even if their length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold."

to:

"MSDUs or MMPDUs carried in a group addressed MPDU shall not be fragmented even if their length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold."

At 1309.32: Change "The MAC may fragment and reassemble individually addressed MSDUs or MMPDUs."

to

"The MAC may fragment and reassemble MSDUs or MMPDUs that are carried in individually addressed MPDUs."

2.7.9.9Mark Resolution ready for motion

2.7.10CID 8313 (MAC)

2.7.10.1Review comment

2.7.10.2Proposed resolution: REJECTED (MAC: 2016-07-15 17:16:29Z):The comment is out of scope: i.e., it is not on changed text, text affected by changed text or text that is the target of an existing valid unsatisfied comment.

2.7.10.3No discussion – No Objection – Mark Ready for motion

2.7.11CID 8328 (MAC)

2.7.11.1 Review comment

2.7.11.2 Need to have more discussion

2.7.11.3Assign to Payam for review – he made the comment, so he obviously likes the proposed change.

2.7.11.4 The proposal is to remove a previous change

2.7.11.5 We need to identify the source of the objected text and work out the issue.

2.7.11.6ACTION ITEM #5: Propose time on Next Thursday Telecon to discuss